What's Matt Foreman's next job ? Anyone know ? Is he working for a candidate, smoozing for a position ?
Matt Foreman is joining the Haas Fund to direct their their gay & lesbian program.
http://www.haasjr.org/index.php/
...an_announcement
No - not sqeamish at all. Some of his best friends are people who "have transgender". Geez - he just said it again - does he have "the gay"?
Barney Frank typifies and attitude towards the Transgender that is common among the gay elite. When it comes to treatment of Transsexuals it often is colored in hate. I am not sure that even they realize their bigotry.
I can see where transgender people would be sensative especially to the acceptance of gay people, since you are often coming from our numbers. At least in my own experience.
I wonder if it becomes an issue that you relate more to heterosexuals than gay people though, in terms of the lives you seek to live. and that your main relatedness to gay people is general compassion that could be expected from anyone. I put that out as a question, because I don't know.
Perhaps you can't expext more from Barney than a heterosexual.
And why would you. Again, this is not a challenge, just a question.
Why would Frank have more of an
obligation to support transexuals than anyone(and I think that everyone does).
Trying to answer the question: I do not expect more from Barney Frank, the gay community, or society in general. I do however expect to at least receive the same care, concern, and equal rights that anyone else has a right to expect.
I do not consider myself gay, however, in my case it is hard to make a sensible judgment as to what is gay, or not, as it relates to a Transsexual. I am not promiscuous either, so I do not see my condition as a sexual matter. It is simply an identity issue, the same as it may be for a natal woman*, a native American**, or any of the current protected classes. I by the activity of Barney Frank have been vilified for what is a clearly defined congenital medical anomaly. As such, even though legally and anatomically a female, I am denied full status under law and practice. A gay may however function in most cases with impunity and full access to services, which I am denied***. Barney Frank by his own words has committed the same bigoted act that were common in the pre-civil rights era of the 60’s. As such I am denied the use of a public restroom. I have been forced to leave a women’s restroom, and denied the use of a men’s restroom. I live in terror often, and at every turn I am out’ed by the job systems which protect the gay community and everyone else.. The transgender have national “NO” legal protection. Even though I may have served the White House and my country as a soldier, I was let go from Federal employ because of my Transition. Having transitioned I have been moved from an executive life to that of a 5th class, one which does not even afford the status and access of an illegal alien. I do not expect anything from Barney Frank, HRC, or the militant gay community, not at all. What do I expect as an American citizen? …. Nothing more than anyone else. And frankly, I have come to expect less, as the activity and proclivity of the likes of Barney Frank, HRC, and the Thugs who steer the gay community are clear. We, the Transgender, are not fit to be included in society. ( IBID: US Congress.)
* (Fully diagnosed as a Transsexual, Transitioned under full medical protocol and care, and recognized as a female.) Yet denied full status and access as are natal women. I am hostage between the laws of the states and the nation.
**(I am 1/8 th Chippewa) Yet denied equal access as Transgender nullifies other protection.
***(Gay Rights and Hate Crimes) Even if I identified as gay I have no protection under sex discrimination law.
I do not know if this answer the questions, but 1/2500 children are born Intersex and the doctor cannot determine sex, or gender. How about mass execution? Perhaps that again, may be the answer to the question?
URL Corection...http://stellewriter.blogspot.com
That's fair! Right after College I worked in a Hospital Department that did trangender surgeries and also did considerable grad work toward a "Gender Studies" degree, and am very much aware of the reality and ignorance that abounds regarding gender. It's really sickening to realize that people who have medical conditions are pushed into such an ugly social reality.
I suspect that because many gay people relate to people of the opposite gender sexually that they assume your sensability to be fickle and not consitutional. Consequently, I'm sure that some gay people can be your worst enemies given that kind of convoluted guesswork.
Something just occured to me about Frank's sqeemishness! Living in a straight world by and large, it behooves Mr.Barney that he can keep hegemonic(straight) men's "respect " by butching it up as much as possible. Association with "men who want to be women"(as they see it) would pull his covers by association. Make sense! anyone recall the refrain, "two things I like to do: suck dick and kick ass" , to shut straight guys up?
Very good insight. I would be interested in extending the conversation from political to medical and social concerns as I see them as more important. Stellewriter
Sorry, but the desensitization campaign still hasn't passed off the transgender facade for normalcy.
Better try to get more films on the subject using non-transgender actors.
Your comment "gays have no political power" is too oblique to do anthing but guess about.
If you are making a comparative statement , most gays live in considerable splendor given the daily travails of transgender people who cannot even have the right to emloyment. The corporate powers who control the kingdom, are welcoming gay people who work hard and spend hard.
I say this as a gay man who has suffered prejudice as much as anyone. I have suffered employment prejudice despite existing laws, but still regard myself as better off than the people I know who even gay folks disregard as human beings.
What do you want? The topic involves Frank and Transexuials.
Etiologically speaking the number of Intersex and Transsexual have risen from less than 1/20,000 some forty years ago to an ambiguous birthrate of 1/2500 in 2006. It appears that the Bioneurological reality is soon going to overtake the scene. The next decade will be interesting, and all of us abnormal “ITs” will be taxing all levels of the social structure. The thought then will generate a complete rewrite to the concepts of gender. How sexuality will be addressed may not fit the Barney Frank mentality any more than it will the conservative bigot.
The rules of engagement are changing….. the possibility of a new and very aggressive Transgender movement is just over the horizon.
Frank has made clear, among other places on the show, that he decided to push for ENDA without Trans protection as a political strategy. At the same time he has said that it pained him to do so. And whether you agree with him or not, he made a reasoned argument for this move
Yet here we get repeated over and over again how this deviation from a more radical and righteous strategy shows that he has qualities we typically associate with our enemies.
Before people continue in this line, they would do well to think about how frequent this kind of demonization of what Marxists called "revisionist" has overtaken political movements from the French Revolution onwards, and how intolerant and short sighted it really is.
I may be short sighted, but then my vision is littered with tears. In the last two years four trans-sisters who I knew, well I knew them. Others, picked up for nothing other than looking like a hooker (they were not)ended up in the bull pen for a night and were ruined. Others forced into solitary confinement 23 hours a day for protection. And the street death toll is in the news. It is not about simply the inequality of someone denied the use of a public toilet, Or in my case being denied basic medical care, even though I can pay and have insurance. It is about young children being beaten in the school yard, or shot. It is about lives ripped and torn because no one cares.
Say it anyway you wish, or as tritely as you wish, Barney Frank expressed it in words, before the world, and it was not seen for what it was.
I am done here!
I don't know how to look at the trans issue. Do they by large consider themselves gay or straight?
If they are a man who wants to become a woman, and succeed in doing so - do they try to settle down with a gay man, or do they find a clueless straight guy and eventually wind up telling them they were originally a male on Jerry Springer?
I've been "out" for 10 years and still really don't get it - which umbrella do they consider themselves under? Gay or straight?
First of all, Scott, it's really insulting to anyone to be associated with Jerry Spinger. You may very well have talked to or seen Transexuals of either gender and talked to them.
I speak as a gay male who most people take as being straight. (thats's a problem, trust me). But I've been around transgender people most of my life so it's not very foreign. For different reasons, often very distinctly constitutional, like having an unusual distribution of X and Y chromosomes; people are internally like a sex opposite to the body that they have. Once they are arranged on the outside in a way that corresponds to the way that they feel on the inside they can go ahead and lead lives which are
in keeping with that. You would be suprised how many changes end up being happily married as heterosexuals. Some people though go through the change and are homosexual. It just seems to depend on the person.
One of the cutest guys I ever saw was once a girl she prbably liked girls because she was getting a penis.
Actually, when I worked in he Hospital where we did surgeries I learned more than anything, because you get to see all different varieties of dysfunctional people getting to become what they feel best as. I remember one young , handsome Blackfoot Indian who had both male and female organs and whos parents made him wear dresses. Well , despite a vagina, and pushy parents, [he] had to wait till he was of age to be changed to the boy he wanted to be. I don't know what his sexual preferance was. I've known people who were University professors. I meet a lot of people on the streets of San Fransisco, who made their way as prostitutes, whatever to get by. In fact I had some very good friends wo I liked to go out and party with.
Trust me., I've never met a more courageous group of survivors. In fact I know that a transexual saved my life several times. Remember it was the street Queens who got awareness of everyones' situation real at Christopher Street.
By and large, I've known a number of people who get into professions and often get married M-F to a man. In fact I've been to weddings of friends. Usually when people are in love they don't care what the person was. Sad if they are that narrow. They lose.
Just first think of transexuals as people who have a physical problem. But a lot of people just give a whole cruel social aspect to it.
The human race has got a long way to come if they want to survive.
Foreman is right. The essence of what he says is that the Democrats and Republicans betrayed us with a bipartisan attack.
With gleeful Republican support Frank, Reid, Billary, Pelosi, Feinstein, Obama and company actively and deliberately sabotaged our agenda; the Clintons’ DOMA and DADT stay while ENDA and the hate crimes bill are scuttled. They did it so the Republicans would’t have any ‘wedge’ issues and so that Democrats could appeal to the bigot vote. Clinton and OIbama are way ahead of the Congressional Democrats on that score.
Except for not getting a pretty red coat to wear how is Barney Frank different than Benedict Arnold.
How many more GLBT youth will have to die before we wake up and launch a massive campaign for a tough hate crimes bill, even if that puts the Democrats on the spot.
How would putting up a good fight in Congress and losing help save the lives of GLBT kids.
Frank's point on not pushing for some bills has always been a strategic one. If a rep votes no on a bill, they are less likely to change their vote in subsequent years than if they do not. In other words, don't but "Democrats on the spot" if doing so is counterproductive.
You can disagree with him, but that doesn't make him equivalent to Larry Craig, which is a more apt metaphor than Benedict Arnold's fashion obsessions.
Michael,
The problem is not just with Frank, however contemptible his role in gutting ENDA. Nor is it a simply a tactical question of how to count votes or when to avoid them. It’s a strategic question that has to do with how many Democrats are bigots and additionally how many more are willing to abandon us to pander to bigots. In other words, are the Democrats, however timid and inept, our allies or are they our enemies.
They’re enemies judging by the overwhelming Democratic (sic) votes for DOMA and DADT and the fact that they don’t have enough votes in their party to repeal them. They’re enemies judging by the gutting of ENDA and the fact that even when both houses passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill they dropped it so the Republicans couldn’t use it ‘against’ them, i.e., brand them as pro-GLBT.
With repeal of DADT and DOMA, ENDA and the Hate Crimes bill all scuttled the conservative and centrist politicians from both US parties sent a clear message about our worth as humans. Street thugs understand that scuttling our agenda in Congress means they have friends in high places who also think we're less than human.
One of those thugs killed a young man in Oxnard, the second to die this year, following 25 deaths last year. Others, emboldened by DADT killed infantryman Barry Winchell and beat many others. Add to that the suicides, like the young transgendered man who killed himself at the height of bigoted attacks on transgendered people during the ENDA last year. http://www.bilerico.com/2007/11/
..._and_stones.php
Your question, “How would putting up a good fight in Congress and losing help save the lives of GLBT kids” Is moot. Congress and the courts will never act in our favor unless we mount massive militant campaigns for our agenda along the lines of the mass movement against the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement or the fight to unionize industry.
Bill,
I agree with what you say about the bigots and the consequences of bigotry, but why is it obvious that a "massive militant campaigns for our agenda" is what is required to counter the bigotry? After all, the only massive militant campaign related to marriage equality in Spain was organized by the Catholic church, and it had no effect, which is why I was able to get married there.
My point is that massive militant campaigns work sometimes, and other times they backfire, and still other times they have no effect, and even more times they just prove impractical to organize. It seems sometimes on the left the romance of mass struggle takes the place of clear strategic thinking. It is seen as the only response, and any deviation from it is interpreted as betrayal of the cause.
Ultimately, Frank is in a Congress with lots of bigots and those who would tolerate bigotry. He is not as militant as some would like, but those who argue against that moderation must make better arguments than the ones I've seen here. Frank is certainly not worthy of demonization because of his approach or tactics. Arguments about tactics and priorities among goals should be done in a spirit of legitimate differences of opinion. The descent into demonization is what I'm criticizing. I think it's simply stupid.
Massive militant campaigns are most successful when they spring up during periods of mass radicalization and have been the origin of ALL forward movement in US society. The court decisions and laws that codify the agendas of these campaigns are based on fear that things will get out of hand unless concessions are given.
Their results are staggering. The union movement vastly improved our lives (until the Reagan-Clinton era.). They were forced to accept a humiliating defeat in Vietnam and two of our enemies, Democrat LBJ and Republican Nixon, were tossed out on their ear. They created a climate of change that encouraged the growth of civil rights and equality movements for African Americans, women, ourselves and others.
Since 2006 we’ve been in the initial stages of a period characterized by the splintering of both parties. The Republicans are getting the worst of it for now. The Democrats turn will come after the elections, especially if they’re successful. Neither party represent their constituents and that will only hurt them in a period of deep polarization. No matter which party wins they won't provide good answers for the economy, the war or bigotry. All the signs and underlying problems indicate the growth of a new period of radicalization.
And as for Barney Frank and his tactics, they’re contemptible but par for the course for the Democrats and the Republicans. Frank led the charge to render ENDA worthless. He and his colleagues in both parties scuttled it and the hate crimes bill and refuse to repeal DOMA and DADT. They joined to put Bush nominees in the courts, fund the war and support the anti-constitutional Paytriot Act. They wrecked our standard of living with tax cuts for the rich, union busting, exporting jobs and welfare cuts for the poor.
You’re wrong when you say that calling Frank, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Feinstein, Obama and Huckabee the enemy of GLBT folks, trade unionists, the antiwar movement, etc is demonizing them, it’s merely describing them. It’s not stupid to accurately portray them, but it is stupid to vote for them. That’s why tens of millions of voters, with a clear idea that the Democrats and the Republicans are our enemies, simply refuse to vote. They not lazy, they’re boycotting, and in many elections they’re the plurality.
I am more and more beginning to see the enemy of the free world and of all peoples as not being any more that Corporatization. The South Americans are getting tired of having these companies coming in and robbing thier natural resources and enslaving the ordinary people so that a few white men can exploit tham and swim in avarice. They don't hate Americans . they hate the Corporations who have killed off all of thier democratically elected representatives. What if , for instance Nike, was to stop enslaving Indonesian people so that a few jackels here can swim in champaign, and paid the people for their work instead.
All of the candidates and the World Bank , and similar institutions were not enslaved.
I think that you know, Bill that I am at least as radicalas you at heart.
I just don't think we have the time that you forsee
I'm not so sure that Americans are smart enough to gain any popular
consensus at any time. Only when It all comes crushing down will they figure things out.
Did you see the article in the NY time about how the pleasuusre lovig ignorance of Americans is are a worse threat to survival than global warming.?
I think that you have a lot more faith in people than many people do..
I 'm just making a despiration bet that something might happen bette rthan what has been, I don't expect much, but something better than Bush who was just pissed of at the Sadam government that we
installed.
I don't think that It can get much worse and survive anyway. So why not role the dice. Do you really think that anyone will wise up before it's too late?
Mark, we’re always going to have conflicting ideas on what’s coming in US politics and how to prepare for it.
From my point of view there's nothing to argue about. The Democrats will either stab us in the back or come through for us. People are either at the stage where they can take a few more years of that or they're not. We'll see.
The only big debate here is whether we should vote for Democrats. I say they're the enemy; others want to give them another chance.
Bill falls back on some surprising ways to defend attacks on Barney Frank and others in his position as, as he puts it, "the enemy."
American Exceptionalism: Whereas I pointed out that favorable policies can be achieved without mass radical struggle, using an example of Spain. Bill says in the US (unlike presumably enlightened Europe) we need mass struggle. In fact, the modern gay movement is usually dated to the end of the 60s period, which could reasonably described in that way. However, most of the actual political changes took place during the 70s and 80s, with many continuing into the 90s and even some advances during the present decade. While there were some mass demos during that time (which I remember quite well) and some great broader movements especially around AIDS, that level of activism is apparently below what Bill means with this reference to the Civil Rights and other movements. Of course recently there have been major setbacks in response to our advances with DADT and the various DOMAs. These are unfortunate, but they have hardly been a massive roll back, like say the imposition of Jim Crow in the south after Reconstruction. Also, they come in the face of much greater though gradual changes in social attitudes, as seen from popular media to high schools. As a result of these changes, it's hard to see DADT lasting much longer or DOMAs being extended much more. In fact, we'll probably have marriage in California and possibly New York sooner rather than later.
A Nader-like political stance. I have no idea whether Bill is a Nader voter—maybe Nader's not pro-gay enough or not socialist enough—but the approach is basically the same. By that, Bill like Nader claims that there is so little difference between the two mainstream parties that it doesn't matter which wins. If war, torture, and social damage of the last 7 years isn't enough to convince someone that this isn't the case, it's really hard to have a conversation. Obviously, many Dems have gone along with Bush, but not all have. Much less would have gone through with a Dem Congress and little or none with a Gore presidency.
Sophistry: Here we find the claim that describing Frank (or even Pelosi) as the enemy is not demonization but accurate description. This is done Naderistically by lumping him with a politically diverse range of representatives and senators including Huckabee and McCain. I guess it's guilt by association, where association means being put into the same sentence.
Zealotry: If anything less than socialism and gender-neutral society is what your after and anything less is well not worth striving for, then Bill's positions make sense. They are in a long tradition dating back at least as far as the Israelite Zealots, and running through Puritans, Jacobins, and Trotskyists. Each of these movements was characterized by demonization of moderates. Each also failed causing much suffering in its wake.
Wrong again Michael.
Marriage. There’ no mystery surrounding the passage of samesex marriage laws in Spain. It happened in the face of stiff opposition from bigoted catholic leaders and the remnants of Franco’s Falangists and is due to two factors. One is the growth of a more enlightened attitude in the EU, especially among youth, and the GLBT protective laws enshrined in EU law. (The further East you go, the more the malicious influence of gaybashing Stalinism can be felt.) The second and far more critical factor is that Spain is ruled by the Spanish Socialist Workers Party, or the PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Español).
If a socialist party ruled the US we’d have leagalized samesex marriage here too as well as a host of tough laws against hate crimes, discrimination and hate speech. Instead we face the harsh reality of Democrats, gleeful backed by Republicans, tossing our agenda into the toilet so Republicans can’t use it as a ‘wedge’ issue. That harsh reality is the price we pay because some blindly vote for an endless string of ‘lesser evil’ Democrats and Republicans. That includes right centrists like poor, much maligned Barney and his right wing and centrist cousins. The Democrats and Republicans retained DOMA and DADT and voted against ENDA and the hate crimes bill, betraying their bipartisan opposition to our agenda.
The Democrats and Republicans are drifting further right and they’re both in trouble. The Republicans are in a crisis because they’re not as good at lying as the Democrats, whose turn will come after the elections and a return to politics as usual, i.e., war, bigotry and the economic crisis. Those questions demand real answers and neither party has them. We’re entering a new political period when their persistent broken promise and backstabbing will lead to their political demise.
The War. Gore would absolutely have continued Clintons attack on Iraq which was itself a carryover from BushOne. The attack on Iraq is a consequence of the BIPARTISAN effort to control resources like oil. Clinton lied about WMDs in 1996 and his sanctions were a sick crusade to kill Iraqi children, the elderly and the ill. IT was all part of a bipartisan agenda that began with the Iraqi attack on Kuwait. The Democrats supported and voted to fund that war under BushOne, Billary Clinton and BushTwo. The continued funding it during the and after the 2006 elections when they promised to end it. They’ve betrayed that pledge and can be counted on to do so again. That’s why they refuse to impeach Bush and Cheney or to convene an International War Crimes Tribunal. Hillary Clinton wants to extend the oil piracy to Iran with a nuclear attack and Barack Obama dementedly wants to extend it to Pakistan, a nation with their own nuclear arsenal and technology.
Social Damage. Another example of Democratic and Republican bipartisanship is their support for attacks on the standards of living of working people. Huckabee, Obama, Clinton, Huckab
Social Damage. Another example of Democratic and Republican bipartisanship is their support for attacks on the standards of living of working people. Obama, Clinton, Huckabee and McCain all support NAFTA and other measures to export jobs and vote for tax breaks for the rich and welfare cuts for the poor. And again the Democrats are by far the better liars. While campaigning they all pretend to be for rebuilding our standard of living but their voting records expose their real program.
I think it’s dead wrong to advocate voting four our enemies, The cheerless reality we face is that they’ll continue the war, continue to aid the rich and erode our standard of living and continue to dismiss our antibigot GLBT agenda, just as they’ve done in the last two years. We can push back by ramping up our criticism and building a militant mass movement. That will put the fakers in the Democratic party on the spot and speed up their political demise. The goal of course is to get our own mass Socialist party to codify our agenda into law.
Too bad! I thought we had a good argument going here.
Now, Bill, it looks like you just replace confident assertions for facts. Look, my husband is Spanish. I lived 8 years of my life there, and during most of that during the first Socialist government there in the 1980s under Felipe Gonzalez. The party despite its name, is hardly socialist. In fact, during the Gonzalez years, it privatized or just closed many state owned enterprises and dismantled a number of the labor protection and rent control laws put in place by Franco (don't ask), an irony that was noted by many at the time.
In 2004, the PSOE put gay marriage in its election platform, and after winning the election they enacted it with the support of more leftist parties but also moderate regional parties. Promise kept. As I said in my first post, this provoked a mass radical movement organized by the Catholic bishops consisting of a number of very large demonstrations and constant over-the-top rhetoric in the media. This movement has not ended to this day, although now they seem to be focused on educational policy and the government's territorial policies. This movement was ignored, just as I said in my original post on why mass action is a strategy, and why it is not always an effective one. As for the "remnants of Falangists," Well, I'm sure that they were at the demos waving their flag, or at least they wanted to be. I don't know if they'd be allowed to. After all, they are hardly the Spanish equivalent of say French or Italian neo Fascists since they never even come close to being in parliament. They are, as the Spanish would say, 4 gatos and probably splintered into 5 parties; they probably play an even more marginal role in Spanish politics than the Klan does in the US. Even before Franco died they were in decline, and they were only one faction in his odious regime. The right wing Popular Party was certainly at all the demos, and they are hard right like the Republicans. In fact, they are very much part of the same international conservative movement.
Ultimately, gay marriage came about in Spain because of the changes in social attitudes since the Franco years and European secularism as well as the willingness of PSOE leadership to put up with a furious, though minority, radical mass movement.
So, guy, you don't know what you are talking about, and if this is the best you can do, there's not really much point in the argument.
Michael the PSOE is not the question and you know it. The deaths of Lawrence King, Sanesha Stewart and Simmie Williams AFTER the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill passed both house and was tossed in the toilet by the Democrats is the heart of the matter.
Quickly on the PSOE, like all reformists they have a spotty record. As for the Falangists, you clearly don’t understand their interpenetration with the neo-fascist catholic Opus Dei movement and their infiltration of the PP. Similarly most Nazis resurfaced in the CDU, the Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands, a rightwing German catholic party. But those are side questions.
Now, leaving the sunny shores of Spain behind and returning to US politics the central focus of our disagreement is my claim that it’s a serious disservice to support the Democrats because they’re the enemy. They trashed our GLBT agenda, everyones (except for the rich) standard of living and their votes have funded the genocide in Iraq. Those unarguable facts illustrate the central debate between us - if you vote for them you vote for their war, bigotry and economic chaos.
Your defense of the Democrats is to claim that I’m mean spirited about poor Barney’s efforts, which are really the Democrats efforts, to prevent support for us from becoming a ‘wedge’ issue as they go trawling for bigot votes. You appear to have some silly idea that you can reform the Democrats by waving a magic wand. If the AFL-CIO, which owns real clout, hasn’t been able to reform them you and the HRC don’t stand a chance. What ultimately happens is that an unending willingness to compromise takes it toll and moves people to the right.
After the election it’ll become abundantly clear that Bush Lite is more genocide in Iraq, a plummeting standard of living and no end to bigotry, racism and misogyny. The days when they could promise everyone everything and continue the Republicans right centrist politics are over. The Republicans found out in 2006 and are in even deeper trouble today. It’ll be the Democrats turn after they take office; they’ll begin to splinter and shatter just like the Republicans. We’ll patiently wait for that and then welcome refugees from your party who are fed up and ready to leave their political closets and come out swinging. If that leads you out of the Democrat Party we’ll welcome you, but if you stay you’ll end up defending Barney and the unending betrayals of the Democrats.
The PSOE is the question only insofar as what your earlier comments indicate about your argument, and which your present comments reinforce. That is: your arguments are not based trying to determine and understand facts--how same sex marriage and other advances have actually been achieved--but on ideology--How Marxist political theory would have them be achieved. Your understanding of the political groups in Spain and the US are also simple Marxist categorizations, with theory replacing facts, or facts shoehorned into the theory.
This need to categorize as good or evil (oh, sorry, I mean progressive or regressive) individuals, groups, and forms of thought is one of the many features that Marxism inherited directly from Judeo-Christian theology. It has led to huge injustices, just as Christianity has.
I think I've said my peace on this topic, though I'll be happy to read what whatever
It's a good thing Matt Foreman is gone. People like him spend WAY too much time going after and addressing nonsense, such as when a celebrity calls somebody a gay slur on the set of his TV show. Who cares about that?
He spent no time going after the real threats, like nuts Ken Hutcherson/the "watchmen" group, and "concerned woman" Matt Barber - yet at the same time, kissing the asses of the likes of Tyler Whitney and Matt Sanchez.
In my opinion, the guy was a worthless leader. He'd probably even make excuses for Hitler, while kissing his ass too. I hope we never hear from him again.
Commenting by HaloScan
